Finsbury Health Centre

Contents:

Contents 2 Introduction 3-6 Air 7-9 Light 10-15 Water 16-18 Energy 19-21 Ground 22-25 Recycle 26 Conclusion /Synthesis/ 27 References

British Modern Movement hero- Lubetkin. He was awarded Royal Gold Medal at Royal Institute of British Architects in 1982 for his significant ‘footprint’ in Britain and for last years of his life he enjoyed international acclaims providing lectures and travels.

Berthold Lubetkin (1901-1990), an architect emerging from Russia, set himself as the most eminent architect in Modern Movement in Britain. His works are characterised by clear geometric figures, technical ingenuity and intensive functional resolution. From early days Berthold was attracted to British traditions of tolerance and scientific progress and sought for possibilities to make his own mark in a country where continental modern architecture had yet to arrive. In 1932, having already rich European experience, Lubetkin formed the Tecton partnership and set up practise in Gower Street, London with six graduates of ‘AA’. One of Tecton’s best-known works, the Penguin Pool at Regent’s

Park, completed in 1934, tiny structure in a purely mathematical shape, brought Lubetkin international celebrity and recognition. Further commissions were private housings and on 1935 Tecton celebrated international acclaim for the apartment blocks at Highpoint I where famous architects were invited, even such famous architects as Le Corbusier attended and admitted that “for a long time he had dreamed of executing dwellings in such conditions for the good of humanity” describing Highpoint I as “an achievement of the first rank, and milestones which will be useful to everybody”. The design involved bold materials and construction strategies new in that period that led this work to success.

After success of Highpoint I and many other projects, Tecton was approached by the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury to propose the programme of social building and regeneration in Finsbury. The first project for Tecton was to build the health centre in the area of Finsbury which is now listed garde 1. It is important to mention that the client Dr Katial and his colleagues approached Tecton not only because of the practise’s radical modern approach but also due to a long lasting impression of Tecton’s early work, unbuilt design for a TB clinic, 1932 that was thoughtful in design and coordination. Lubetkin described the Finsbury Health Centre as the building where “the atmosphere should resemble that of a club, but one that anyone should feel free t enter without the need for membership or the intimidation typically associated with hospital buildings and the medical profession- a pioneering example of what might now be called ‘social inclusion’”. His intention was to avoid any reception desk and simply furnish the main foyer informally with coffee-tables and easy chairs, like the saloon lounge of small hotel.

Finsbury Health Centre project was significant and first of modern designs of the local avant-garde group among metropolitan commissions.

Architect:

Name: Berthold Lubetkin (1901-1990) Key: Famous projects:

Introduction

Building:

Architect: Lubetkin and Tecton Address: 17 Pine Street London EC1R 0LP Construction time: 1935-1938 The client: Public authority, but project driven by Dr Chuni Lal Katial,who approached the modernist architectural firm of Tecton to devise plans for the clinic Reason for building: The 1936 Public Health (London) Act empowered local authorities to provide medical services to their local population. Style: Modernist Engineer: Ove Arup Cost: The final cost of the build, including equipment, was nearly £62,000 – more than £3 million in today’s money. Key aspects: Well lit rooms, glass block foyer wall, cheerful atmosphere, motto “nothing is too good for ordinary people” Construction: Concrete and glass, teak framing, H-shaped design, metal windows, ceramic finishes Listed: In 1970, Finsbury Health Centre was listed as a building of special architectural interest. Today, it holds a Grade 1 listed status, recognising it as a building of great architectural and cultural significance.

The building is thought in terms of people circulation and rooms located very thoughtfully.

Photos of the building:

The route/ accessibility/site/first impression: On Wednesday 9th October, I went to the site where this building was. It was located near Farringdon station and about 5 minutes’ walk to the health centre. At the first sight, I was very shocked by the size of the building because as I did research about the building before, the photographs of the building predicted it would be bigger than what it actually is. Right in front of the health centre was residential houses which were built more recently and to me they very contrasted with the health centre design. The health centre stands out from the surrounding for its age and not being looked after; the facade of the building was in rough condition, exterior wall tiles were coming off, molds were forming on the surface of the walls and few windows were smashed. Contrary to that, I really liked the building’s front wall made of glass tiles that allow more light to come thorough also making the reception room look clean and pleasantly calm to sit in. However, I was not able to enter further from inside through the building because at the end of the day it is health centre, so I am currently dealing with the suitable appointment time to have a tour around. Overall I am dissatisfied with the state of the building and I think it is no longer suitable to house a health centre at its present state and to work further it requires refurbishment. Despite to this, the design of the building, by considering the time it was built, is still quite pleasant and modern due to shapes and site plan, and if the building would be renovated it would keep standing out as the point of amazement and interest and carrying the historical heritage.

AIR

AIR

AIR

There is evident some mechanical ventilation by using fan to ventilate the premise and some passive ventilation by opening windows to cause air molecules exchange in the room.

LIGHT

LIGHT 22nd December:

LIGHT 22nd March:

LIGHT 22nd June:

LIGHT 22nd September:

LIGHT Ceiling plan- artificial lighting used in the foyer:

Water Ceiling plan- artificial lighting used in the foyer:

Water Ceiling plan- artificial lighting used in the foyer:

Water

The plan of sewer located on site with photos

Energy Heating:

The system was intended to work like this, where hot air washes people beneath. It just looked too good on the drawing,

But in real time we see this happening, because hot air rises up and cold sinks.

The image above represents the heating system used at the beginning of the building. The system was by firing oil, warming the water within the distribution pipes and delivering warm water to coils embedded in the ceiling.

Energy Heating:

Also, the fact there are new extra radiators put, emphasisezes that the intended heating system didn’t work well and there was needed new approach in heating the premises of the building. Of course, it doesn’t match with Lubetkin’s intended idea where all pipes and radiators are hidden, but at the end of the day, it seems, the comfort of the building mattered more. I think Lubetkin, instead of embedding coils on the ceiling, to produce ceiling heating, should have put them on the floor, so warm air would raise and warm up people and premise on the way of lifting up and thermally exchanging with cold air to form the temperature of the room

Other energies like gravitational potential energy is used heavily in this building design,. For example, the cold water storage tanks are located as high as possible in order to produce greater pressure and GPE is conserved in KE, to run down quicker. Also in piping, due to pressure, is possible to over go pulling down gravity force on water.

Energy Electricity:

The electricity is supplied from NW of the building at intake chamber where it is distributed to whole building. The key features in this design involve having ducts for wiring that allow new electrical appliance connectivity in easy way by just wiring new switch into duct that has already designed spaces.

Ground Dimensions of Finsbury Health Centre

Ground Exploded construction/material diagrams:

Insides are open spaced and walls are set by putting designed blocks to form rooms. Theuser can adjust the room size to their own need.

Ground Exploded construction/material diagram on one of the wings of Finsbury Health Centre:

Ground Materials used:

Recycle Dimensions

Every Monday the bins are collected by Farringdon council and on daily basis the surrounding site is been cleaned by a cleaning person, so the majority of litter has been collected by cleaner. In terms of sorting the rubbish, there are no evident bins for various kinds of materials, such as cardboards, medicine equipment, food, aluminium and others. I think the recycling side of Finsbury health centre is poor because the surrounding area was partly in litter and even in bin section, at the back of the building, there was a mess. I presume special medicine waste is disposed in special bins and trucked through different companies.

Conclusion Synthesis:

Conclusion:

References:

Finsbury Health Centre by firm ‘Lubetkin and Tecton’ is the one of first Modernist buildings built in the Britain after post-war period. It is very significant for Britain as this building was one of first that very deliberately designed for public health improvement in Britain in Farringdon Borough. The materials used, such as, reinforced concrete for structure and glazed tiles with glazing panels to enhance the aesthetics also was very important at that time. From practical point of view, Lubetkin together with engineer Arup come up with the solution that was compact yet very functional in terms for clinic purpose. The equipment and room location, together with circulation of people shows well thought solution, because all the clinics, are located on the ground floor for ease of access for people and all the offices on first floor for staff use mainly. The another key aspect in this building is the use of maximum light possible for this area and this was done with the reason to make appointment commence more pleasant and change stereotypical feeling. Initial absence of the receptionist desk and cheerful environment conveys this as well, because this all was to make people feel better, even knowing it is a doctor’s appointment. The air ventilation is working fine, with some extractors and fans to circulate air movement in the place, because it is crucial to remember this building is clinic and needs fresh air throughout the operating time. In terms of efficiency in energy, this building lacks in heat holding within the building, because of use of single glazed windows that are original and needs repair. Also, the ceiling heating system didn’t work properly and were exchanged into normal radiators inside the building. Saddens the fact that the pipe work is visible from inside that is contrasting to the initial architect’s vision by having ducts. I think the building needs refurbishment.

Lubetkin and Tecton designed very thoughtful concept of clinic that was inspirational for many further projects. It was built for local people and as Lubetkin said “nothing is too good for ordinary people” so this matched in his design, where all surfaces were clean and shiny, materials used were light in colours. There is high illumination of light in the spaces are high and also the rooms are ventilated, to make comfortable for patients. Unfortunately, due to wartime, original glass/silk-fibre panels were destroyed. After the building was built and suffered from war, it has been refurbished slightly, causing major maintenance issues, like rusty and failing windows, damaged tile wall etc. The most significant refurbishment was by Avanti Architects and 1988 They required £350k for refurbishment of one wall and it made the other look poor. This building is listed as Grade 1 and currently been under investigation if the borough should keep it and restore or demolish and build new one as the costs are estimated to be £9.1m but this figure might be overestimated and actual figure comes true to be £5m. I think the way the building looks is just poor maintenance from the council and should be refurbished.

http://savefinsburyhealthcentre.wordpress.com/history/ http://cllrmartinklute.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/finsbury-health-centre.html ‘Lubetkin’ by John Allan, 2006